Political Scientist: Republicans Most Conservative They've Been In 100 Years

[rolling7]

There is a new book out, 'Passage of Power' by Robert Caro and it depicts the presidency of LBJ. Since LBJ's War on Poverty started in 1964, we have poured billions of workers dollars into a progran to support non-workers. The surest way to keep the poor in poverty is "help" them more. Take away their incentive to work hard and leave poverty behind. Has LBJ's program worked out? The percentage of Americans living in poverty has increased.
The lesson to teach future generation is, and has always been, hard work will advance anyone willing to keep an upward mobility, once you start depending on hand-outs you are dead in your track.

 

[Foxrac]

There is a new book out, 'Passage of Power' by Robert Caro and it depicts the presidency of LBJ. Since LBJ's War on Poverty started in 1964, we have poured billions of workers dollars into a progran to support non-workers. The surest way to keep the poor in poverty is "help" them more. Take away their incentive to work hard and leave poverty behind. Has LBJ's program worked out? The percentage of Americans living in poverty has increased.
The lesson to teach future generation is, and has always been, hard work will advance anyone willing to keep an upward mobility, once you start depending on hand-outs you are dead in your track.

That's your opinion. *facepalm*

 

[kokonut]

There is a new book out, 'Passage of Power' by Robert Caro and it depicts the presidency of LBJ. Since LBJ's War on Poverty started in 1964, we have poured billions of workers dollars into a progran to support non-workers. The surest way to keep the poor in poverty is "help" them more. Take away their incentive to work hard and leave poverty behind. Has LBJ's program worked out? The percentage of Americans living in poverty has increased.
The lesson to teach future generation is, and has always been, hard work will advance anyone willing to keep an upward mobility, once you start depending on hand-outs you are dead in your track.

Welfare regulations have created problems of perpetual dependence by limiting the incentives for those to get off of welfare such as losing their welfare check once they get a job, be it part time or full time. It creates a disincentive to go and look for work because of the fear of not making enough money or lose their welfare support. It should be a gradual process with a proper support service in case a job falls through or that they need more training and educational support to move up.

 

[Grayma]

There is a new book out, 'Passage of Power' by Robert Caro and it depicts the presidency of LBJ. Since LBJ's War on Poverty started in 1964, we have poured billions of workers dollars into a progran to support non-workers. The surest way to keep the poor in poverty is "help" them more. Take away their incentive to work hard and leave poverty behind. Has LBJ's program worked out? The percentage of Americans living in poverty has increased.
The lesson to teach future generation is, and has always been, hard work will advance anyone willing to keep an upward mobility, once you start depending on hand-outs you are dead in your track.

The percentage has increased partly because we redefined poverty. People living in what we call 'poverty' now would have been called 'middle class' in the 60s.

But I agree with you, government dependency is a trap as vicious and crippling as slavery.

In fact, did you know that the black family was more intact in the years after slavery ended than it has been since the Welfare state?

 

[Foxrac]

Welfare regulations have created problems of perpetual dependence by limiting the incentives for those to get off of welfare such as losing their welfare check once they get a job, be it part time or full time. It creates a disincentive to go and look for work because of the fear of not making enough money or lose their welfare support. It should be a gradual process with a proper support service in case a job falls through or that they need more training and educational support to move up.

It doesn't matter anymore, it is depending on income.

If your income is much lower so you are qualify for Medicaid, food stamp, Section 8 housing, etc.

Usually, you will lose qualify for Medicaid and food stamp if your income is greater than $950 per month (in Alabama) but could be much as if you live in expensive state like California, Hawaii, Alaska, DC.

I'm qualified for Medicaid and food stamp in DC but not qualified in Alabama.

There are training and educational programs availability as always.

Some people couldn't have access or limited access to work due to health reasons or physical disabilities (not deafness).

 

[Foxrac]

The percentage has increased partly because we redefined poverty. People living in what we call 'poverty' now would have been called 'middle class' in the 60s.

But I agree with you, government dependency is a trap as vicious and crippling as slavery.

In fact, did you know that the black family was more intact in the years after slavery ended than it has been since the Welfare state?

What are you talking about it? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Foxrac]

I'm advocate for welfare programs that where poor people need that, even they have jobs as well but not enough to support themselves.

The freeloaders are classic issue and we have law that deal with welfare fraud. There are majority of people need that.

 

[rolling7]

What are you talking about it? It doesn't make sense to me.

I'll try to get it to make since to you.

The number of black families which has a two-parent household and a legal marriage was much, much greater, percent-wise, back then. Today there are far more single-parent households and non-married head-of-the-house, usually an unmarried mother.
Keep in mind we are NOT making this exclusive about blacks. There are plenty of examples for the whites and Hispanics also.

 

[Foxrac]

I'll try to get it to make since to you.

The number of black families which has a two-parent household and a legal marriage was much, much greater, percent-wise, back then. Today there are far more single-parent households and non-married head-of-the-house, usually an unmarried mother.
Keep in mind we are NOT making this exclusive about blacks. There are plenty of examples for the whites and Hispanics also.

for clarify about what Grayma saying.

Yup, that's 1800's and 1900's when society was different than today, I don't blame on welfare programs that caused increase of single parent and I have seen plenty of single parent aren't on welfare programs. The social problems among married couples have increased and they divorce eventually, it isn't look good and we may need improve the society like increase of family counseling and more support for families.

 

[Foxrac]

Thx for clarifying......

I don't think he meant to combine you two as similar posters. I think he meant to combine your similarly worded topics, and reply to both with one post.

You don't look bad to me, especially since you explained your meaning.

We all get misunderstood at times.

No problem.

I don't dispute the fact about majority of republicans supported civil rights and the republicans in 1960's was different from today. My father was huge fan of Republican Party during late 1960's and 1970's so he hopped out in 1988 after realized about Republican Party got more conservative than ever.

If I take political science course so I'm going make sure that research paper that based on fact. I'm very critical to conservatives, not based on Republican Party because some people on Republican Party aren't conservative.

 

[rolling7]

for clarify about what Grayma saying.

Yup, that's 1800's and 1900's when society was different than today, I don't blame on welfare programs that caused increase of single parent and I have seen plenty of single parent aren't on welfare programs. The social problems among married couples have increased and they divorce eventually, it isn't look good and we may need improve the society like increase of family counseling and more support for families.

I'm having trouble with your post's ending where you speak of families. I do realize the change of the days but I, myself, still see a family as beginning with two people married to each other. In otherwords, a family began when two people wed rash other before their families and friends and before any kid was born.

Please go back and re-read my post and you will see where I used "non-married".
My point being that since the 60s the number of children born out of wedlock has jumped tremendously, percentage wise. There can be other factors involved in the reason why but I see the government's hands deeply involved.

 

[Foxrac]

I'm having trouble with your post's ending where you speak of families. I do realize the change of the days but I, myself, still see a family as beginning with two people married to each other. In otherwords, a family began when two people wed rash other before their families and friends and before any kid was born.

Please go back and re-read my post and you will see where I used "non-married".
My point being that since the 60s the number of children born out of wedlock has jumped tremendously, percentage wise. There can be other factors involved in the reason why but I see the government's hands deeply involved.

Now, I'm very confused about what are you talking.

 

[Reba]

What are you talking about it? It doesn't make sense to me.

She means that more men and women married each other and raised their children together back then, compared to today.

 

[soutthpaw]

I see little difference in voting for the republican agenda today and voting for the Pope to be president. It is sad that there no longer seems to be a difference between the Republican party and the major organized religions in the USA

 

[soutthpaw]

Don't forget what this traditional marriage is as defined in the bible

 

[Reba]

I see little difference in voting for the republican agenda today and voting for the Pope to be president. It is sad that there no longer seems to be a difference between the Republican party and the major organized religions in the USA

I'm a conservative who votes mostly Republican. There's no way I'd vote for the Pope (who realistically isn't even eligible) to be President. (I'm sure you were being facetious.)

Also, I don't belong to a major organized religion, and neither do many other conservative voters. I don't see any resemblance between the Republican Party and my church, other than we both hold elections by the membership.

It looks like the Republican nominee will probably be a Mormon. I don't know how you would classify his religion.

 

[Grayma]

for clarify about what Grayma saying.

Yup, that's 1800's and 1900's when society was different than today, I don't blame on welfare programs that caused increase of single parent and I have seen plenty of single parent aren't on welfare programs. The social problems among married couples have increased and they divorce eventually, it isn't look good and we may need improve the society like increase of family counseling and more support for families.

No, it isn't just a matter of changing times. It's a matter of the Welfare State harming families.

The poverty rate among blacks was nearly cut in half in the 20 years prior to the 1960s, a record unmatched since then, despite the expansion of welfare-state policies in the 1960s.

Unemployment among black 16- and 17-year-old males was 12 percent back in 1950. Yet unemployment rates among black 16- and 17-year-old males has not been less than 30 percent for any year since 1970 – and has been over 40 percent in some of those years.

Not only was unemployment among blacks in general lower before the liberal welfare-state policies expanded in the 1960s, rates of imprisonment of blacks were also lower then, and most black children were raised in two-parent families. At one time, a higher percentage of blacks than whites were married and working.

None of these facts fits liberal social dogmas.

While many politicians and “leaders” have claimed credit for black progress, no one seems to be willing to take the blame for the retrogressions represented by higher unemployment rates, higher crime rates and higher rates of imprisonment today. Or for the disintegration of the black family, which survived centuries of slavery and generations of government-imposed discrimination in the Jim Crow era, but began coming apart in the wake of the expansion of the liberal welfare state and its accompanying social dogmas.

Thomas Sowell, black conservative, sociologist, historian, and author
The welfare state: Rhetoric vs. reality

He's an economist, not sociologist.

 

[Foxrac]

No, it isn't just a matter of changing times. It's a matter of the Welfare State harming families.


Thomas Sowell, black conservative, sociologist, historian, and author
The welfare state: Rhetoric vs. reality

I have to disagree with you and dispute this link that you posted.

WND is right wing media and I'm not trust any media that run by right wing.

USA is no welfare state!

 

[Reba]

yes just pick and choose which bible verses you want to believe and ignore like the ones that are quoted in the picture above, that makes lots of sense.

Not to mention the bible was entirely written by males..

Unlike you adding a bunch of stuff to Genesis 2 that wasn't even in that passage.

Your graphic looks good but it's an inaccurate representation of the verses.

If you want further discussion, we will have to move it to pm's because religious debate isn't allowed in this forum.

 

[soutthpaw]

Oh sorry, Probably in those rules that most of us never read. No need to discuss futher via PM as it would be like beating a dead horse... no opinions will change. Consider this the end of discussion on my part...